One word: Entourage. It's getting better, and the new service pack helps a lot, but it still doesn't match up with Outlook in Exchange interoperability. For many people, it might not be an issue, but in the corporate environment, in severely hinders Macintoshes from being considered, "ready for prime time".
I was going to write something like this, but wanted to scan through to see if anyone else had said anything. In many situations, it makes sense that a business would simply do what would be, overall, most profitable for that business. Use one product to prop up another. Fine.
However, when you have a monopoly using this maneuver as an anti-competitive tactic, it's a problem. In this context, to say, "Why should Microsoft build applications for an operating system directly competing with their own?" is to confirm that it was a mistake when the courts decided not to break Microsoft up into an OS company and an applications company.
Anyway... the only real market I see for symantec for OSX users is system diagnostics and filesystem repair.
Frankly, I feel like Symantec has pretty well given up on their "Utilities" products. Norton Disk Doctor used to be a great product. Much better than the utilities that came with the OS. But now, run Norton Disk Doctor in Windows on your boot drive, and it'll tell you that you need to restart. When you restart, it'll run a chkdsk. I don't mean, "It'll run the Symantec equivalent of chkdsk", I mean it literally runs chkdsk. Considering the prevalence of single-drive systems, this makes NDD pretty useless on Windows. Oh, and with Norton Utilities for Windows, if you boot from the CD, all you can do is run a DOS mode antivirus scanner that won't even read NTFS partitions.
Now for the OSX version of NU, likewise, NDD won't run on the system disk while OSX is running. Fine. So you put the CD in the drive, reboot to the CD, and.... it freezes. The current version of the disk just won't boot on any computer made in the last year and a half. So, again, it's pretty much useless. In fact, most of NU is only useful if you boot from the CD.
Norton used to make top-notch utilities. These days, they're so focussed on buying Veritas and pushing their corporate antivirus solutions that they haven't improved their other products. Not only have they "not improved", but as the technology has changed, they've failed to keep up. I used to think NU was a must-have, and now it's really a what's-the-point?.
If the MTA allowed the American Cheese Lovers Association to use the maps without permission and then refused to let the American Broccoli Lovers Association do the same the courts would almost surely rule that the MTA did not have the right to selectively enforce its copyright in a discriminatory manner against broccoli lovers.
Again, this isn't how copyrights work. For the courts to rule that the MTA can't selectively allow some people to use its works and not others would be to rule that the MTA cannot hold a copyright. That probably wouldn't bother me too much, though.
The only way you might have a point is if the MTA was basing their decisions of who can use their IP based on race or some such thing. The courts might very well step in on that one. However, there are no anti-discrimination laws protecting broccoli lovers, and when you hold a copyright, you are in a position to decide who you will let use that material. It's your prerogative. It's not copyright infringement so long as people are using your IP in a way that you think is fine, and there's no reason to "enforce" your copyright until it's been infringed upon.
Too bad they gave up on that market by killing Norton Utilities for Mac a couple years ago. Of course, that product peaked at version 6 and started stinking up the place after that. IIRC, it was never updated for OS X, either-- the most they did with it was make it OS X aware, so it wouldn't screw something up while trying to "fix" something that OS X needed a certain way.
Norton Utilities does exist for OSX. Unfortunately, they don't keep up to date on it to make sure it supports Apple's latest OS, so it isn't usually very useful.
I've been confused about this too. The drag and drop method of install is fantastic. It's easy to install, easy to uninstall, and makes the whole process seem to make sense. I would think that keeping apps modular and self contained might have a couple security benefits beyond the obvious ease of installation/uninstallation. So why can't developers manage it?
Someone mentioned Acrobat. Ok, I can understand Acrobat installs a virtual printer, but why do the rest of Adobe's apps need an installer? In my mind, if you aren't altering the way the system works, if you're just installing an application, you shouldn't need administrative rights or an installer.
I wonder if it isn't connected to people failing to understand that installation can be as simple as drag-and-drop. I've even seen applications with installers that just drop a folder in the Applications directory, and that.app file can be dragged to other computers, no problem. In other words, it is a completely functional and self-contained.app, but the developer still insists on distributing in a package with an installer. Why? Is it really some prejudice that you aren't really installing something properly unless some program does it for you?
Of course, you then need some kind of social engineering attack to persuade people to download it, run it, and enter an admin password. This is, of course, possible - just find some stupid people. The problem is that a virus scanner won't do anything to protect you against this kind of thing.
Also that nothing is immune to stupidity, not even virus scanners. If someone is stupid enough to be convinced to run arbitrary unknown code from an untrusted source, there's a good chance that they can be convinced to disable their virus scanner.
Just like drug companies that release a cure for a disease you'd never heard of, just after 'credible' reports appear in the media showing that most of the poopulation suffer from it.
More like drug companies trying to sell vaccinations for a disease that doesn't exist yet.
Once the city knows about an unauthorized use and and does nothing about it they establish a precedent under which anyone could use the maps for any purpose.
No, they don't. That's not how the copyright works. Failure to sue one person for copyright infringement does not forfeit the copyright or constitute a license. The MTA could allow people to use the maps however they wanted, offering no license, but also not suing, up until someone uses it in a way they don't like, and then sue.
Maybe you're thinking of trademarks, which I believe do require some sort of enforcement.
I'd prefer to call it a "common exaggeration". Sure, a lot of musicians will make *some* money from record sales, and some will even make quite a bit. In any case, it's all legal, as the musicians have signed contracts that allow it. The fact remains, very little money from record sales makes it into musicians' pockets.
AFAIK, everything is legal until a law says otherwise.
... or until a court interprets a law/precident already on the books applies to the situation.
For america's legal system, I would more quickly say, "everything is legal until it's been tried." Even laws don't really apply unless the executive branch applies them and the judicial branch upholds them. You might think you're safe from legal action because there isn't a law written specifically to cover buying mp3s from Russia, but all it takes is for the courts to decide that this is a violation of standing copyright law, and you'll be in trouble anyhow.
Video is not portable in any successful manner. Cell phone providers can't get people interested;
Oh, so... since cell phone providers can't get people interested in their crappy, poorly designed, expensive portable video, no one else should attempt such a thing, even if it becomes technologically trivial?
Why not allow video playback on the iPod? They already have a color screen, and enough hard drive space to store several movies. It's not like it'd take much to allow video playback.
Of course, if they add a good video decoding chip, a bigger screen, and a longer lasting battery, it'd make it more practical to play video, but it isn't as though playing a movie requires Apple to design a completely new device.
As for this initiative, it's not explained very well, that's for sure. It seems like a simple naming convention for viruses as well as a central location for all virus information. I'm not big on the government taking away such a role from private industry, but with the threat of viruses affecting everyone, it makes sense that the government provide a baseline starting point for all antivirus companies to start from. It is not in the best interest of the public to have a single private company hoard virus information.
I think it's mostly just a means to have a standardized naming convention instead of each antivirus company inventing their own names for viruses/worms. That way, when you hear an alert, "Watch out for [Virus-X]!" you don't need to spend an hour trying to figure out what your antivirus company is calling "Virus-X" in order to know whether you're protected, because they'll also call it "Virus-X".
The article was good, from 10,000 feet, but I thought it missed a few points.
I was a bit surprised that, after bothering to talk about the size of the stores respective catalogues and the merits of each interface, the conclusion simply drew on which was cheapest. Doesn't quality count for anything?
Why don't you just steal your own music. At least that way you aren't paying some Russian mafia asshole to steal it for you. What in gods name do you think you are paying for?
They're paying for the Russian mafia to steal if for them. Sheesh, don't you read your own writing?
Seriously, I haven't bought a thing from allofmp3.com, but I can understand the inclination. "Stealing" music is a pain. Dropped connections, crappy encoding, low bitrates, etc. People have been saying for years that they'd be willing to pay for downloadable music if they could have their choice of encodings, at the bitrate they choose, without DRM, and cheap.
Every time someone downloads from allofmp3, it just demonstrates that there's a market that the RIAA refuses to satisfy. People are willing to pay for downloads when the service offers something superior to "stealing".
Finally, I'm not so sure I like the RIAA any better than the Russian mafia. Either way, not one cent of my money is going to be given to the musicians.
Give me a break..... as an iPod owner, I don't feel "stuck" with the iTunes Music Store. It makes it sound like the iTMS is a piece of junk that we're "stuck" with. Personally I love the user experience of the iTMS and love all of the little nice touches.
What struck me was, in the end of the whole review, he recommends Yahoo and Walmart because they're cheaper. He doesn't weigh the user experience, the catalogue that you have access to, or anything else. Just, iTunes is 99 cents a song and Walmart and Yahoo are slightly cheaper. That's it. That's the whole basis of his "stuck".
There is probably no legal precedent about file downloads that go across international boarders, but there is little doubt that a US Citizen is violating at least the spirit of the law by using AllOfMP3.com... and in all probability the letter of the law.
IANAL, but what I've been able to drudge up from lawyers about this is, there is no clear legal answer for US citizens as to whether downloading from AllOfMP3 is legal. It could be argued, for example, that the purchase takes place in Russia, and therefore it is a legal sale by Russian law, and that the downloading constitutes a private individual importing a good purchased overseas. There are laws about what goods can be imported and how, but nothing barring purchased data being transferred over the internet.
Therefore, (according to this interpretation) if it is legal to buy in Russia, legal to import, and legal to own in America, the purchase is legal.
Because the big labels have power (and earn their money) from controlling three aspects of music:
Production
Marketing
Distribution
New technology threatens the RIAA's control in all three of these areas. Home music studios are becoming more viable. The internet provides a fresh avenue of promotion. The internet is providing a cheap means of distribution.
Now, the RIAA still has quite a foothold in each of these areas, and is looking to maintain control. Distribution is probably where they're most vulnerable. However, as long as "distribution" still means "physical media shipment", their likelihood of maintaining control is much better. It's expensive to produce all those CDs, and difficult to get them stocked at all the various music chains across the country.
If, on the other hand, people become so accustomed to buying music online that physical media distribution becomes semi-obsolete, then the RIAA will have lost 1/3 of their strangle hold on music right there. Musicians will be able to release directly online, and record companies, even if they maintain the production/marketing areas, will find it hard to claim all the profits from sales (which they pretty much do now).
Call me paranoid, but that's my theory as to why the RIAA seems dead-set on sabotaging online distribution.
How about the equally unlikely, "three cheers for the RIAA!" for keeping Microsoft out of the music business? With all the knack Microsoft has for leveraging their monopolies, I don't want anyone in control of the content delivery, the content format, AND the device the content plays on, all by making deals with a monopoly that controls the content production.
It's a bit disconcerting when it's Apple. It'd be downright frightening if it's Microsoft.
And for those who will correct me on the "Lucas and Star Wars" thing, no, he didn't direct ALL of them, but he was the Executive Producer on all of them, and very involved with the creative aspects of all of them.
I'll let you in on a little secret: "Producer" credits have no set meaning. It doesn't necessarily mean you're involved creatively, but it doesn't mean you're not. It doesn't mean you've put up your own money and handled business issues yourself, but it doesn't mean you didn't.
This gets particularly hairy when you hear titles like "Executive Producer" or "Co-Producer". These can be almost honorary titles. However, in a movie, when you have a creative type who's listed as "executive producer", there's a good chance he's running the show, but has chosen not to direct the thing himself (i.e. Lucas and Star Wars).
Due to his success with the LoTR movies, I'm guessing he's not hurting for work/money, and therefore, if he's getting involved with Halo, it's probably because he's interested in it. Meaning he probably won't be creatively detached. Meaning, if you're a Peter Jackson fan, it's good news for Halo.
To be fair, though, it's a good argument against DRM (at least certain kinds of DRM). DRM wouldn't stop people from getting to the video illegally, but it prevents manufacturers from creating devices that improve our ability to access the content. It holds back business and innovation as well as inconveniencing consumers, all for the sake of thwarting copyright violators who won't be thwarted anyhow.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that was what he meant by, "the only true political organization on this planet".
One word: Entourage. It's getting better, and the new service pack helps a lot, but it still doesn't match up with Outlook in Exchange interoperability. For many people, it might not be an issue, but in the corporate environment, in severely hinders Macintoshes from being considered, "ready for prime time".
That deal that you're thinking of has since elapsed.
However, when you have a monopoly using this maneuver as an anti-competitive tactic, it's a problem. In this context, to say, "Why should Microsoft build applications for an operating system directly competing with their own?" is to confirm that it was a mistake when the courts decided not to break Microsoft up into an OS company and an applications company.
Frankly, I feel like Symantec has pretty well given up on their "Utilities" products. Norton Disk Doctor used to be a great product. Much better than the utilities that came with the OS. But now, run Norton Disk Doctor in Windows on your boot drive, and it'll tell you that you need to restart. When you restart, it'll run a chkdsk. I don't mean, "It'll run the Symantec equivalent of chkdsk", I mean it literally runs chkdsk. Considering the prevalence of single-drive systems, this makes NDD pretty useless on Windows. Oh, and with Norton Utilities for Windows, if you boot from the CD, all you can do is run a DOS mode antivirus scanner that won't even read NTFS partitions.
Now for the OSX version of NU, likewise, NDD won't run on the system disk while OSX is running. Fine. So you put the CD in the drive, reboot to the CD, and.... it freezes. The current version of the disk just won't boot on any computer made in the last year and a half. So, again, it's pretty much useless. In fact, most of NU is only useful if you boot from the CD.
Norton used to make top-notch utilities. These days, they're so focussed on buying Veritas and pushing their corporate antivirus solutions that they haven't improved their other products. Not only have they "not improved", but as the technology has changed, they've failed to keep up. I used to think NU was a must-have, and now it's really a what's-the-point?.
Again, this isn't how copyrights work. For the courts to rule that the MTA can't selectively allow some people to use its works and not others would be to rule that the MTA cannot hold a copyright. That probably wouldn't bother me too much, though.
The only way you might have a point is if the MTA was basing their decisions of who can use their IP based on race or some such thing. The courts might very well step in on that one. However, there are no anti-discrimination laws protecting broccoli lovers, and when you hold a copyright, you are in a position to decide who you will let use that material. It's your prerogative. It's not copyright infringement so long as people are using your IP in a way that you think is fine, and there's no reason to "enforce" your copyright until it's been infringed upon.
Norton Utilities does exist for OSX. Unfortunately, they don't keep up to date on it to make sure it supports Apple's latest OS, so it isn't usually very useful.
Someone mentioned Acrobat. Ok, I can understand Acrobat installs a virtual printer, but why do the rest of Adobe's apps need an installer? In my mind, if you aren't altering the way the system works, if you're just installing an application, you shouldn't need administrative rights or an installer.
I wonder if it isn't connected to people failing to understand that installation can be as simple as drag-and-drop. I've even seen applications with installers that just drop a folder in the Applications directory, and that .app file can be dragged to other computers, no problem. In other words, it is a completely functional and self-contained .app, but the developer still insists on distributing in a package with an installer. Why? Is it really some prejudice that you aren't really installing something properly unless some program does it for you?
Also that nothing is immune to stupidity, not even virus scanners. If someone is stupid enough to be convinced to run arbitrary unknown code from an untrusted source, there's a good chance that they can be convinced to disable their virus scanner.
More like drug companies trying to sell vaccinations for a disease that doesn't exist yet.
No, they don't. That's not how the copyright works. Failure to sue one person for copyright infringement does not forfeit the copyright or constitute a license. The MTA could allow people to use the maps however they wanted, offering no license, but also not suing, up until someone uses it in a way they don't like, and then sue.
Maybe you're thinking of trademarks, which I believe do require some sort of enforcement.
(didn't RTFA. Too boring.)
I'd prefer to call it a "common exaggeration". Sure, a lot of musicians will make *some* money from record sales, and some will even make quite a bit. In any case, it's all legal, as the musicians have signed contracts that allow it. The fact remains, very little money from record sales makes it into musicians' pockets.
... or until a court interprets a law/precident already on the books applies to the situation.
For america's legal system, I would more quickly say, "everything is legal until it's been tried." Even laws don't really apply unless the executive branch applies them and the judicial branch upholds them. You might think you're safe from legal action because there isn't a law written specifically to cover buying mp3s from Russia, but all it takes is for the courts to decide that this is a violation of standing copyright law, and you'll be in trouble anyhow.
Oh, so... since cell phone providers can't get people interested in their crappy, poorly designed, expensive portable video, no one else should attempt such a thing, even if it becomes technologically trivial?
Why not allow video playback on the iPod? They already have a color screen, and enough hard drive space to store several movies. It's not like it'd take much to allow video playback.
Of course, if they add a good video decoding chip, a bigger screen, and a longer lasting battery, it'd make it more practical to play video, but it isn't as though playing a movie requires Apple to design a completely new device.
I think it's mostly just a means to have a standardized naming convention instead of each antivirus company inventing their own names for viruses/worms. That way, when you hear an alert, "Watch out for [Virus-X]!" you don't need to spend an hour trying to figure out what your antivirus company is calling "Virus-X" in order to know whether you're protected, because they'll also call it "Virus-X".
I was a bit surprised that, after bothering to talk about the size of the stores respective catalogues and the merits of each interface, the conclusion simply drew on which was cheapest. Doesn't quality count for anything?
They're paying for the Russian mafia to steal if for them. Sheesh, don't you read your own writing?
Seriously, I haven't bought a thing from allofmp3.com, but I can understand the inclination. "Stealing" music is a pain. Dropped connections, crappy encoding, low bitrates, etc. People have been saying for years that they'd be willing to pay for downloadable music if they could have their choice of encodings, at the bitrate they choose, without DRM, and cheap.
Every time someone downloads from allofmp3, it just demonstrates that there's a market that the RIAA refuses to satisfy. People are willing to pay for downloads when the service offers something superior to "stealing".
Finally, I'm not so sure I like the RIAA any better than the Russian mafia. Either way, not one cent of my money is going to be given to the musicians.
What struck me was, in the end of the whole review, he recommends Yahoo and Walmart because they're cheaper. He doesn't weigh the user experience, the catalogue that you have access to, or anything else. Just, iTunes is 99 cents a song and Walmart and Yahoo are slightly cheaper. That's it. That's the whole basis of his "stuck".
IANAL, but what I've been able to drudge up from lawyers about this is, there is no clear legal answer for US citizens as to whether downloading from AllOfMP3 is legal. It could be argued, for example, that the purchase takes place in Russia, and therefore it is a legal sale by Russian law, and that the downloading constitutes a private individual importing a good purchased overseas. There are laws about what goods can be imported and how, but nothing barring purchased data being transferred over the internet.
Therefore, (according to this interpretation) if it is legal to buy in Russia, legal to import, and legal to own in America, the purchase is legal.
New technology threatens the RIAA's control in all three of these areas. Home music studios are becoming more viable. The internet provides a fresh avenue of promotion. The internet is providing a cheap means of distribution.
Now, the RIAA still has quite a foothold in each of these areas, and is looking to maintain control. Distribution is probably where they're most vulnerable. However, as long as "distribution" still means "physical media shipment", their likelihood of maintaining control is much better. It's expensive to produce all those CDs, and difficult to get them stocked at all the various music chains across the country.
If, on the other hand, people become so accustomed to buying music online that physical media distribution becomes semi-obsolete, then the RIAA will have lost 1/3 of their strangle hold on music right there. Musicians will be able to release directly online, and record companies, even if they maintain the production/marketing areas, will find it hard to claim all the profits from sales (which they pretty much do now).
Call me paranoid, but that's my theory as to why the RIAA seems dead-set on sabotaging online distribution.
It's a bit disconcerting when it's Apple. It'd be downright frightening if it's Microsoft.
And for those who will correct me on the "Lucas and Star Wars" thing, no, he didn't direct ALL of them, but he was the Executive Producer on all of them, and very involved with the creative aspects of all of them.
This gets particularly hairy when you hear titles like "Executive Producer" or "Co-Producer". These can be almost honorary titles. However, in a movie, when you have a creative type who's listed as "executive producer", there's a good chance he's running the show, but has chosen not to direct the thing himself (i.e. Lucas and Star Wars).
Due to his success with the LoTR movies, I'm guessing he's not hurting for work/money, and therefore, if he's getting involved with Halo, it's probably because he's interested in it. Meaning he probably won't be creatively detached. Meaning, if you're a Peter Jackson fan, it's good news for Halo.
To be fair, though, it's a good argument against DRM (at least certain kinds of DRM). DRM wouldn't stop people from getting to the video illegally, but it prevents manufacturers from creating devices that improve our ability to access the content. It holds back business and innovation as well as inconveniencing consumers, all for the sake of thwarting copyright violators who won't be thwarted anyhow.